|
Post by Tom on Oct 9, 2023 12:14:11 GMT -5
More than one person suspects essentially all schools keep an eye on the bottom line constantly (and that includes during admission decision time). There are all sorts of self-selected feel-good words (which can be changed on a dime and with no fanfare) to describe the admissions process relative to need. And what school doesn't know that admitting the early decision applicants pretty heavily, for example, is generally quite good for the bottom line (not withstanding any of the feel-good words). Are there any industry standards (enforceable or not) preventing one college determining an applicant's need is less and the expected family contribution is more than another college concludes using the exact same info? Sort of If federal loans are part of the "package", you have to use the federal calculation of family contribution
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 9, 2023 15:31:03 GMT -5
Are there any industry standards (enforceable or not) preventing one college determining an applicant's need is less and the expected family contribution is more than another college concludes using the exact same info? Sort of If federal loans are part of the "package", you have to use the federal calculation of family contribution So that leaves shorting an applicant, who qualifies for admission but doesn't excite anyone, on grants from internal funds as the only way for a college to get ahead? I'm kind of being humorous but not completely.
|
|